当代侵权法比较研究（四）
注释:
[1] Bill Dufwa, ‘Country Report Sweden’, in Gerhard Wagner (ed), Tort Law and Liability Insurance (2005), nn 24 ff, 52 ff.
[2] Lapoyade Deschamps (n 43), 89.
[3]Michael Stolleis, Geschichte des Sozialrechts in Deutschland (2003), 52 ff.
[4] 参较Ulrich Magnus, The Impact of Social Security Law on Tort Law (2003)。工伤赔偿制度正在逐渐替代侵权法：Austria (p 11, nn 13 ff), Belgium (p 39, n 22), France (p 77, n 9), Germany (pp 97 ff, n 13), Greece (p 124, nn 35 ff), Switzerland (p 202, n 21)。美国的情形与此相似，但州与州之间的制度设计存在差异：在一些州，工人应向公共基金缴费，但在另外一些州，工人有义务办理责任保险。参较Dobbs (n 49), 1098 ff.
[5] Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland, Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2004 (2004),190 n 7.2.3.
[6] Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft e.V. (ed), 2004 Yearbook—The German Insurance Industry, 90 ff (available at: ).
[7] Robert Keeton and Jeffrey O’Connell, Basic Protection for the Traffic Victim—Blueprint for Reforming Automobile Insurance (1965), 5 ff, 273 ff; 最近的更为全面的建议，参见 Stephen D. Sugarman, ‘Doing Away with Tort Law’, (1985) 73 California LR 558 ff.
[8] André Tunc, ‘Traffic Accident Compensation’， in Arthur Hartkamp, Martijn Hesselink, Ewoud Hondius, Carla Joustra, and Edgar du Perron (eds), Towards a European Civil Code (2nd edn, 1998), 461,462 ff.
[9] Patrick Atiyah, Accidents, Compensation and the Law (1st edn, 1970), 603 ff.
[10] Richard Mahoney, ‘New Zealand¡¯s Accident Compensation Scheme: A Reassessment’, (1992) 40 AJCL 159 ff.
[11] 概要的论述，参见Tunc,‘Traffic Accident Compensation: Law and Proposals’, in idem (n 1), ch 14 (1971), paras 187 ff, paras 54 ff; as to the situation in the United States and Canada, see Don Dewees, David Duff, and Michael Trebilcock, Exploring the Domain of Accident Law (1996), 15.
[12]参照on this topic Viney and Jourdain (n 53), nos. 48 ff.
[13]参照Art L 211-8. ff, L-421-1 ff. Code des assurances; Simon Fredericq, Risques modernes et indemnisation des victimes de lésions corporelles (1990), nos. 48 ff.
[14] Terré，et al (n 100), no. 935.
[15] ibid.
[16] 更为全面的解释，参见 Gerhard Wagner, ‘Comparative Report and Conclusions’, in idem (ed), Tort Law and Liability Insurance (n 176), nn 108 ff.
[17] Terré et al (n 100), no. 930.
*防御性医疗（defensive medicine）是指医务人员为了减少医疗风险，保护自我而实施的偏离规范化医疗服务准则的医疗行为）——译者注
[18]参照Stephen D. Sugarman, Doing Away with Personal Injury Law (1989), 18 ff.
[19] Patrick Atiyah, The Damages Lottery (1997), 183.
[20] Thomas Ulen,‘Tort Law and Liability Insurance in the United States’， in Wagner (n 176), n 29; see also Wagner (n 191), nn 106 ff.
[21] 大概的相关论述，参见 Lotta Wendel, ‘Compensation in the Swedish Health Care Sector’, in Jos Dute, Michael G. Faure, and Helmut Koziol (eds), No-Fault Compensation in the Health Care Sector (2004), nn 28 ff; Dewees et al (n 186), 139 ff.
[22] Wagner (n 191), n 109.
[23] Rogers (n 34), para 8.1.
[24] Edgar du Perron and Willem H. van Boom, ‘Country Report Netherland’， in Magnus (n 179), 155 n 21.
[25]这是简·斯特普顿（Jane Stapleton）在其著作中得出的结论，参见其所著 Disease and the Compensation Debate (1986), 142 ff, 150 ff。另见 Wagner (n 191), n 111.至于早期的相关论述，参见Jeremiah Smith, ‘Sequel to Workermen’s Compensation Acts’, (1913) 27 Harvard LR 235 ff, 251: “如果当代侵权普通法的基本原则本质上是正确的或适当的，立法者将工人的情形排除于基本原则的适用范围之外，是否有足够的理由？另一方面，如果这一法定规则对于工人而言是真正公正或适当的话，拒绝将这一法定规则作为工人之外的其他人在其遭受双方均无过错的损害时，相关损害赔偿请求权的检验标准是否有足够的理由？”
[26] 更为透彻的论述，请参照 Wagner (n 52), 331 ff.
[27] Germany: ¡ì 116 Sozialgesetzbuch X (Social Security Act, part X); Wagner (n 52), 306 ff; France: Art 29 ff loi 5.7.1985 (loi Badinter); Lambert-Faivre (n 166), no. 441 ff.
[28] 英国法上的历史演进，参照 Richard Lewis, Deducting Benefits from Damages for Personal Injury (1999), paras 14.01 ff; Wagner (n 52), 314 ff.
[29] Lewis (n 203), paras 14.01 ff, 18.15 ff; see also Rogers (n 34), para 22.33.
[30] Lewis (n 203), para 14.03.
[31]参照Robert L. Rabin, ‘Indeterminate Future Harm in the Context of September 11’, (2002) 88 Vanderbilt LR 1831 ff; idem, ‘The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund: A Circumscribed Response or an Auspicious Model?’, (2003) 53 DePaul LR 769 ff; Marshall S. Shapo, Compensation for Victims of Terrorism (2005), 105 ff.